Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Freiburger v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided February 11, 2015No. 5295Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

THOMAS, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I agree with the majority that the PCR court correctly denied Freiburger relief on the issues he raised concerning **256alleged violations of Brady v. Maryland3 and Crawford v. Washington.4 I also agree with the majority's decision to affirm the PCR court's refusal to grant relief due to trial counsel's alleged failure to use the Parnell Report when cross-examining Lt. Parnell. As to the Hoover letter, I do not dispute that Freiburger's trial counsel had been informed of its existence and that we should not address whether the evidence…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Ard v. CatoeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  5. Edwards v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API